Is gender equality wrong?

paky

If human beings (man and woman) were designed to be equal then why do we have do design a society that accomodates gender equality?
Nature tells us that man is dominant and that woman is submissive. Are we not perverting nature by creating gender equality?
Religion has emphasised porccreation through history by segregating the sexes to do so. Yes I know it had its problems but we have our own too.
Western society is increasingly seeing an increase in single childless women who end up never married and childless.
I was wondering what everybody thought about this. Did we get it wrong?

Please attack the post and not the poster.

paky

paky wrote: »

Please attack the post and not the poster.

Bad post! You're a stupid post!


Anyway the answer to all your questions is no...
I'd go into further detail but it's just a no.

Willbbz

No. We need gender equality for a balanced and fair society and most people will agree with that





you sexist :P

clouds

paky wrote: »

If human beings (man and woman) were designed to be equal then why do we have do design a society that accomodates gender equality?
Nature tells us that man is dominant and that woman is submissive. Are we not perverting nature by creating gender equality?
Religion has emphasised porccreation through history by segregating the sexes to do so. Yes I know it had its problems but we have our own too.
Western society is increasingly seeing an increase in single childless women who end up never married and childless.
I was wondering what everybody thought about this. Did we get it wrong?

Please attack the post and not the poster.

No. this post, this bold bold post, got it wrong.

Let's phrase the post this way:

If all races are designed to be equal why do we have to design a society that promotes equality for all?

Nature tells us that white people are dominant and black people submissive....blah blah blah....an example or two of some sh!te from history, then a demographic 'fact' (dunno about the veracity) with no attempt to place it in context, or analyse it, just infer it's somehow 'unnatural'.

Please be nice to me

wonton

could you give an example of where we went wrong?

I think women being single and childless isn't a good enough reason to think this, women in the past wouldnt have had near as much freedom in choosing who they marry, and having children was slightly easier without birth control i would guess.

paky

Willbbz wrote: »

No. We need gender equality for a balanced and fair society and most people will agree with that





you sexist :P

i dont think people in the middle east would agree?
people in the west seem to think the western way of doing things is superior to others and theres no questioning it.

if the balance of power shifted in 20 years time and the middle east became the dominant society, with all its oil, would we start doing things the way they do in the middle east?

clouds

paky wrote: »

i dont think people in the middle east would agree?
people in the west seem to think the western way of doing things is superior to others and theres no questioning it.

Gender equality is not an expression of western cultural imperialism!

paky

clouds wrote: »

Gender equality is not an expression of western cultural imperialism!

how do you know that? what was iran like before the Iranian revolution or afghanistan before the taliban?
these things have a habit of repeating themselves.

wonton

paky wrote: »

i dont think people in the middle east would agree?
people in the west seem to think the western way of doing things is superior to others and theres no questioning it.

if the balance of power shifted in 20 years time and the middle east became the dominant society, with all its oil, would we start doing things the way they do in the middle east?

there isn't even enough oil there to last how long it would take for middle middle eastern ways of thinking to influence strongly in the west.

clouds

How do I know that? Really?

Because brain does not equal balls.

:rolleyes:

paky

wonton wrote: »

there isn't even enough oil there to last how long it would take for middle middle eastern ways of thinking to influence strongly in the west.

i know buts its a hypothetical argument.
where does it say that gender equality is right? man made this rule and that doesnt make it right. there seems to be a stronger argument against it as its already indented in our nature!
equality for the races, yes, equality for the sexes, hmm?

clouds

Maybe you're right.

We can keep ye looked up in things called 'harems' and just let you out when we fancy some sex or some heavy boxes lifting.

wonton

There is plenty of stuff indented to our nature that we don't accept as the best way of living our lives, we didn't evolve to live in the modern society we live in now.

paky

clouds wrote: »

Maybe you're right.

We can keep ye looked up in things called 'harems' and just let you out when we fancy some sex or some heavy boxes lifting.

you and what army?

clouds

Ok so Paky the nub of your 'argument' if I'll call it that is that might is right

paky

clouds wrote: »

Ok so Paky the nub of your 'argument' if I'll call it that is that might is right

there maybe some truth in what your saying. the rights and freedoms that women have today were given to them by men who fought and died in wars that they rarely did.

mystique150

paky wrote: »

If human beings (man and woman) were designed to be equal then why do we have do design a society that accomodates gender equality?
Nature tells us that man is dominant and that woman is submissive. Are we not perverting nature by creating gender equality?
Religion has emphasised porccreation through history by segregating the sexes to do so. Yes I know it had its problems but we have our own too.
Western society is increasingly seeing an increase in single childless women who end up never married and childless.
I was wondering what everybody thought about this. Did we get it wrong?

Please attack the post and not the poster.

1. Gender inequality might be tolerated if we were still hunter gathers living as one with nature. We're not and we've already perverted nature by exploiting its natural resources to increase our numbers.
2. The women that chose not to have children are doing us all a favour as we're already overpopulated.

IpreDictDeatH

clouds wrote: »

No. this post, this bold bold post, got it wrong.

Let's phrase the post this way:

If all races are designed to be equal why do we have to design a society that promotes equality for all?

Nature tells us that white people are dominant and black people submissive....blah blah blah....an example or two of some sh!te from history, then a demographic 'fact' (dunno about the veracity) with no attempt to place it in context, or analyse it, just infer it's somehow 'unnatural'.

Please be nice to me

Give me an example of where nature tells us that white people are dominant and black people submissive? Nature tells us that man is dominant in things like sex and strenght. I think that was the OP's point. Yes, women should be paid the same etc...but the male of the species will always be dominant in relation to nature and procreation of a species. Females dont go around chasing males in any species.

mystique150

IpreDictDeatH wrote: »

but the male of the species will always be dominant in relation to nature and procreation of a species. Females dont go around chasing males in any species.

Its not the case in every species. Take the black widow spider as one example. The females exploit the males for the sake of procreation and then kill them. Queen bees and ants are also more dominant. In mammals, the female spotted hyenas are also dominant over males.

kowloon

clouds wrote: »

Maybe you're right.

We can keep ye looked up in things called 'harems' and just let you out when we fancy some sex or some heavy boxes lifting.

We can also get the lids off jars, don't forget our jar opening abilities.

paky

wonton wrote: »

could you give an example of where we went wrong?

the fact that men and women have different sexual organs, different mentality and a completely different nature. how could they be possibly equal?

paky

paky wrote: »

the fact that men and women have different sexual organs, different mentality and a completely different nature. how could they be possibly equal?

That doesn't imply that one is greater or more important than the other, though. You're building a strawman: just because women and men aren't biologically equal doesn't imply that equality is wrong.

Odysseus

Does the answer not depend on what we consider to be right or wrong? Our society today tells us that it is wrong that we should all be equal creating an ideal. This viewpoint has changed over the last century. However, are we asking a civilised question on the nature of mankind, which may not be in tune with our current viewpoints or civilised.

Taking a position morally, yes I believe that we should all be equal, however, that does not mean that naturally that is the way we should be. By using the words right or wrong do we not limit the question within a moralistic answer?

clouds

paky wrote: »

the fact that men and women have different sexual organs, different mentality and a completely different nature. how could they be possibly equal?

FACT 'different sexual orgns'

UNPROVEN UNSUPPORTED INANE AGENDA DRIVEN RANTINGS 'Different mentality and completely different nature' Or perhaps someone can prove otherwise without reference to a 500 word 'article' in the Features section of the Indo or something their ex girlfriend did once.

.

clouds

Well yes it does Odysseus otherwise it would be a different question.

Bannasidhe

IpreDictDeatH wrote: »

Give me an example of where nature tells us that white people are dominant and black people submissive? Nature tells us that man is dominant in things like sex and strenght. I think that was the OP's point. Yes, women should be paid the same etc...but the male of the species will always be dominant in relation to nature and procreation of a species. Females dont go around chasing males in any species.

Or you could view it as the male is expendable - Nature endowed them with 'greater' physical strength for that precise reason - the hunter required a specific kind of physical strength but was also more likely to be killed then the gatherer. But all archaeologists agree that around 80% of food was garnered by the gatherers - not the hunters. So the hunter's contribution was not the more significant.

I would also suggest that is is not really a case of 'greater' strength but of physical properties which are manifested differently in males and females. It takes a great deal of physical strength to carry another human being inside you for 9 months and then give birth to it through a very narrow opening. Medical experts reckon child birth is as painful as experiencing a full blown cardiac arrest - yet females have done this time and time again AND THEN gotten up to look after the baby. For the baby to survive in pre-modern times it needed its mother - the father's job was to provide for the mother, but to be honest any able bodied adult could fulfil that role.

Males are aggressive- most military conflicts result in males killing males - thereby suggesting a built in tendency towards self destruction designed to limit the number of males.

After all - we need more wombs then sperm producers for the species to survive so it is far more important for the female to survive than the male. QED - Nature favours the survival of females over that of males - so females are the ones who are 'dominant in relation to nature and procreation'.

paky

Bannasidhe wrote: »

After all - we need more wombs then sperm producers for the species to survive so it is far more important for the female to survive than the male. QED - Nature favours the survival of females over that of males - so females are the ones who are 'dominant in relation to nature and procreation'.

so until a woman gives birth, only then, should she be treated equally? is that what natural law tells us?

Bannasidhe

paky wrote: »

so until a woman gives birth, only then, should they be treated equally? is that what natural law tells us?

No - nature tells us that until men can give birth we don't need so many of them.

paky

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No - nature tells us that until men can give birth we don't need so many of them.

if men and women are equal, then where do men make up for the pain women suffer when they give birth?

CAI6

*yawn*

Bull plop.

Nature tells us...blah

Nature designed an equal society where women gathered food, and men hunted. Men and women worked together to survive. Women look after children more often because they breast feed, men can't, so if they want the kids to survive they do it.

Men superior than women is one concept that spread with the development of empires and colonies. Women were superior if not equal to men in many cultures. The celts for example.

paky

CAI6 wrote: »

Women were superior if not equal to men in many cultures. The celts for example.

so was the case in soviet russia but whats your point?

clouds

paky wrote: »

if men and women are equal, then where do men make up for the pain women suffer when they give birth?

Men and women ARE equal Paky. <tousles Paky's hair>
Not always treated as such, mind.

What is the point of this thread? What is it you REALLY want to say but are bit afraid to?

Bannasidhe

paky wrote: »

if men and women are equal, then where do men make up for the pain women suffer when they give birth?

They don't.
Unless one counts situations where they placed themselves in great danger - often being killed/severely injured - trying to kill a large bit of protein to provide extra food.
However, prior to contraception most women who were heterosexually active had little choice re: becoming pregnant. Men's decision to hunt was a societal imperative - not a biological one.

I sometimes wonder if the portrayal of women as the the 'weaker' sex is not born out of unconscious guilt on the part of men. Womb envy anyone?

Odysseus

clouds wrote: »

Well yes it does Odysseus otherwise it would be a different question.

Sorry Clouds, could you expand on that a tad? Just to clarify your position. Would you concur that the concept or equality is an ideal that we have created and have moved towards significantly in the past century? I would base that upon the various changes that have occurred during that time frame.

Whereas it can be said that sexual equality has made massive changes in the past century, I would acknowledge that sexual inequality does certainly exist. However, it occurs on both sides of the devoid, for example the is an ad on TV currently for crisis pregnancy agencies, each subject thinks of their counsellor/therapist and an image of a female therapist is shown each time.

I use this as it actually bugs me a bit, yes some clients may be more comfortable with a female; but it's very subjective. Often a lot of females that I see about their experience of sexually abuse or rape are more comfortable working with a male. Of course there are better examples of than that; but that ad was just on the TV.

Whereas I would be unhappy with my fellow therapist who is female earning less than me, just based upon the difference between our sex; but that is due to the effect of process of civilisation. Penis envy would still exist from a psychoanalytic viewpoint, however, with the re-reading of Freud's work through Lacan's focus upon structural linguistics; it would be based upon the concept of the Phallus rather than the actual organ in and of itself. Here is a quick outline of the difference between Lacan and Freud if you are interested or not familiar with his work http://www.colorado.edu/English/courses/ENGL2012Klages/lacan.html

This of course is not to say it is the only way to discuss the process, there are always many answers to a question, it really depends upon the position one takes. I just not sure whether the position I take, that being one which would aim for an equal world around gender, is only based upon the process of civilisation [and through that education] that I experienced.

paky

clouds wrote: »

Men and women ARE equal Paky. <tousles Paky's hair>
Not always treated as such, mind.

What is the point of this thread? What is it you REALLY want to say but are bit afraid to?

my point is this. Childless women get a better deal in an equal society than men do. only women have the ability to reproduce and society depends on them to do so. this is a role no man can 'fill'. if society is truly equal then men should be able to demand women have children before they are entitled to equal rights. in turn the same would have to go for men with no children.

Insect Overlord

Is it just me or is this whole thread patently ridiculous? Anyone?

paky

paky wrote: »

my point is this. Childless women get a better deal in an equal society than men do. only women have the ability to reproduce and society depends on them to do so. this is a role no man can 'fill'. if society is truly equal then men should be able to demand women have children before they are entitled to equal rights. in turn the same would have to go for men with no children.

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

1. How do childless women get a "better deal in an equal society" than childless men?

2. Men have the ability to reproduce, too, you know... Women can't reproduce without men, and vice versa. I thought that'd be an obvious fact.

3. How on Earth does demanding that a woman (or a man) have a child before they're to be entitled to equal rights make any sense? I can't see your logic.

If you don't start making sense (i.e. producing a coherent argument backed up with scientific evidence or articles) then this thread will be closed as, at this point (and from the start really), it's just a joke.

paky

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

1. How do childless women get a "better deal in an equal society" than childless men?

2. Men have the ability to reproduce, too, you know... Women can't reproduce without men, and vice versa. I thought that'd be an obvious fact.

3. How on Earth does demanding that a woman (or a man) have a child before they're to be entitled to equal rights make any sense? I can't see your logic.

If you don't start making sense then this thread will be closed as, at this point (and from the start really), it's just a joke.

its not a joke. until somebody can explain to me why the sexes should be equal i shall continue my rant.
if equality is based on natural law, natural law tells us we must reproduce. if women are given the sole resposiblity of this and they choose not to reproduce but follow their careers, are they not robbing soicety of a role which men cant replace?

paky

paky wrote: »

its not a joke. until somebody can explain to me why the sexes should be equal i shall continue my rant.

Or until I deem that this thread is pointless and close it.

if equality is based on natural law, natural law tells us we must reproduce. if women are given the sole resposiblity of this and they choose not to reproduce but follow their careers, are they not robbing soicety of something men cant replace?

No, of course not. That's a stupid argument. Not all women are refusing to reproduce and, as you say, "robbing society of something men can't replace." If a few do so that's their own choice. Implying that because a minority choose "not to reproduce" all women are choosing not to reproduce is a logical fallacy. It's not a valid argument. Also, who's saying that equality is based on natural law? Is it not also a moral standpoint?

It's a woman's choice to have children or not. Just as it is a man's. Forcing it upon a person is a ridiculous notion. Also, applying natural laws to social situations is a slippery slope. Are you also an advocate of social Darwinism? I wouldn't think so. Stop looking for reasons to not threat another as equal.

paky

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Or until I deem that this thread is pointless and close it.



No, of course not. That's a stupid argument. Not all women are refusing to reproduce and, as you say, "robbing society of something men can't replace." If a few do so that's their own choice. Implying that because a minority choose "not to reproduce" all women are choosing not to reproduce is a logical fallacy. It's not a valid argument. Also, who's saying that equality is based on natural law? Is it not also a moral standpoint?

It's a woman's choice to have children or not. Just as it is a man's. Forcing it upon a person is a ridiculous notion. Also, applying natural laws to social situations is a slippery slope. Are you also an advocate of social Darwinism? I wouldn't think so. Stop looking for reasons to not threat another as equal.

whats social darwinism?

paky

paky wrote: »

whats social darwinism?

Social Darwinism. Applying the ideas of Darwinism (survival of the fittest, mainly) to society. An excuse to see others as lesser and thus exploit or kill them, really.

If you're not going to address any of the other points I raised then this thread has run it's course.

Odysseus

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Is it just me or is this whole thread patently ridiculous? Anyone?

Serious question, can I ask why? Just looking at the topic in and off itself do you not think it as being a serious question? That is leaving aside any undertones that may or may not exist, but have been alluded to.

I ask as I have lurked here a bit the last while, but only posted for the first time a few days ago on the incest thread, as that would be one that interests me and of course I would be interested in sexual difference and how that is signified in society. So though I only had two anthropology modules during my degree, but certain psychoanalysts have drawn upon the work of certain anthropologists like Lacan drawing upon Levi Struss, so I'm interested in what you guys think on those topics. As I don’t think that any of us, anthropology, psychoanalysis, psychology have the ultimate answer.


Or have I just go sucked into a bum thread?

paky

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Social Darwinism. Applying the ideas of Darwinism (survival of the fittest, mainly) to society. An excuse to see others as lesser and thus exploit or kill them, really.

If you're not going to address any of the other points I raised then this thread has run it's course.

how dare you. im pro life. im in favour of restricting rights from people who havent yet reproduced. instead of having them reach the age of 18 they must have children to avail of these rights

Insect Overlord

Odysseus wrote: »

Serious question, can I ask why? Just looking at the topic in and off itself do you not think it as being a serious question? That is leaving aside any undertones that may or may not exist, but have been alluded to.

I believe that the thread-title could indeed have prompted a fantastic discussion. It's a very interesting philosophical question. The trouble is, the reasoning behind the OP's posts is flawed at best, and preposterous at worst. So many ridiculous assertions have been put forward, I can't see enough decent replies saving it.

paky

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I believe that the thread-title could indeed have prompted a fantastic discussion. It's a very interesting philosophical question. The trouble is, the reasoning behind the OP's posts is flawed at best, and preposterous at worst. So many ridiculous assertions have been put forward, I can't see enough decent replies saving it.

i think i have raised some valid points. society is constantly evolving, and to assume that we have gotten to the end all is preposterous.
it was only 30 years ago that david norris took a homosexual discrimination case against the irish government. 30 years later its looking like hes going to be the next president.
i think its very important we keep an open mind on things

Odysseus

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I believe that the thread-title could indeed have prompted a fantastic discussion. It's a very interesting philosophical question. The trouble is, the reasoning behind the OP's posts is flawed at best, and preposterous at worst. So many ridiculous assertions have been put forward, I can't see enough decent replies saving it.

Having re-read it since my first post on the topic, I think you may be correct and that I naively jumped in thinking that it would be a discussion like the one you mentioned, as you said philosophically it is an interesting topic.

paky

Insect Overlord wrote: »

The trouble is, the reasoning behind the OP's posts is flawed at best, and preposterous at worst. So many ridiculous assertions have been put forward, I can't see enough decent replies saving it.

can you back that up?

mystique150

paky wrote: »

i dont think people in the middle east would agree?
people in the west seem to think the western way of doing things is superior to others and theres no questioning it.

if the balance of power shifted in 20 years time and the middle east became the dominant society, with all its oil, would we start doing things the way they do in the middle east?

paky wrote: »

there maybe some truth in what your saying. the rights and freedoms that women have today were given to them by men who fought and died in wars that they rarely did.

paky wrote: »

the fact that men and women have different sexual organs, different mentality and a completely different nature. how could they be possibly equal?

paky wrote: »

so until a woman gives birth, only then, should she be treated equally? is that what natural law tells us?

paky wrote: »

if men and women are equal, then where do men make up for the pain women suffer when they give birth?

paky wrote: »

my point is this. Childless women get a better deal in an equal society than men do. only women have the ability to reproduce and society depends on them to do so. this is a role no man can 'fill'. if society is truly equal then men should be able to demand women have children before they are entitled to equal rights. in turn the same would have to go for men with no children.

paky wrote: »

can you back that up?

Ya we can!

CAI6

paky wrote: »

so was the case in soviet russia but whats your point?

That is has nothing to do with nature?

mystique150

mystique150 wrote: »

Ya we can!

And with that... Thread closed.